Absolutely agreed, rimrocker. And this is really just a distraction and will ultimately be a non-story. I only brought it up because it was such an amazing example of the depths to which Hillary is willing to sink to win a race she's already lost.
Fine, just don't claim you have JUST NOW, with this terible new development started to see racism in the campaign. You brought race into the Roxran thing. Nowhere did he even talk about his race. He just said he supported some other guy. But now thats racist cause the other guy was black. and if you don't call the arguments or the people that bring them up on this board racist, who would you call a racist? Do we not all argue with each other? We are not on CNN behind podiums.
As for the racism part - when someone consistently, not accidentally, uses racially tinged language over and over, they start to lose the benefit of the doubt and get called racist. That's is the same basic reason why bigtexxx and T_J are often called racist.
what about roxran. His racist argument was that he wanted another guy besides obama to be a canidate. does he have a long history of racism?
No i said it could mean upper middle or lower middle or middle. Once I heard the tape it was obvious she corrected working by adding hard working. So she meant blue collar. And instead of disputing its importance or showing I dunno that say people with less education vote less, it was deemed racist.
Again, that's because of her history of racially tinged statements. She's starting to lose the benefit of the doubt with a lot of people. If this statement was taken alone, less people would probably see it that way.
I agree the quote is terrible and is not something anyone who wants to lead the Dem Party should think, much less utter. I was aiming at the people trying to justify it with voodoo demographics.
Ahhhh..... the joy of the internet. She was making a (rather goofy in my opinion) comment on the demographic that supports her. She isn't getting the support of Blacks, so she couldn't make a blanket statement about 'working americans' -- a euphimism that's been used for lower earning people for just about ever. I suppose she could have said 'non-black' to include hispanic and others -- but then we'd be blessed with a thread about how she singles out blacks -- and is raising Obama's race once again. Whatever. Clumsy use of words. Is it really that different from bitter people clinging to religeon and guns? But of course that was different because you knew what he meant. The nomination is just about sewn up. So we're left with the "I would be leading if we counted the votes differently", "I would win...except for this group..etc etc". Can't y'all just ignore it and move on. At this point, it is inevitable. Look to McCain. Do we really need another Batman thread stating that if she wins -- a scenario that's been shown to be just about as impossible as impossible can be at this point -- he really, really REALLY -- no really -- would not vote for her. Seriously...he wouldn't. Not ever. Because, up until now...I suppose he hasn't been clear on that point. She's evil. Pure and simple. Bunch of angry young men, you are. This is the politics of hope, change and understanding? Is there such a thing as a sore winner?
Honestly, lets face it - whites tend to vote for a white canidate and blacks tend to vote for a black canidate. This country is one of racial bias, it's there - why pull the wool over our eyes. But I don't think it's a surprise that both "working-class" Americans or those without college degrees and African Americans who tend to be socio-economically disadvantage both are voting along racial lines. As for Hillary's comment - I don't see her as a racist. Clearly she is just trying to say that white blue collar voters are voting for her and not in any way suggesting blacks are not hard working. Which ironically - a lot of people think.
Batman, now you understand why I have been so vitriolic in my opposition to a Hillary candidacy from Day 1.
I don't know how many other ways I can say this: Clinton supporters are always claiming Obama and his supporters have been the ones to raise race as an issue in the campaign. I was saying I was not one of the ones you could credibly accuse of doing that. I've criticized her campaign, and harshly, for many things. Not for that. Today is the first day I'm doing that. That's. What. I. Was. Saying. I don't know why you're having so much trouble understanding that. I was not saying I'd never called anyone in the world racist. Jorge has called Barack Obama "Balack Osama" about a hundred times here. That is racist and I've said so. And I've already explained the Roxran thing a couple times too, including in the original thread (hilarious read btw, thanks for the memories - you come off especially badly in it). It wasn't a matter of Roxran simply preferring another candidate as you're saying. It was a matter of him preferring another black man -- and one that hadn't been a candidate, considered running, hadn't been considered as a possible candidate by anyone in the world and had hardly been on the news since more than a year before Roxran made his post. He was clearly saying I don't like this one black guy as much as this other black guy. It was weird and a little racist, as I said and explained then. You seem to have a real problem with having a normal conversation.
Listening to it I don't think it is quite as clearly racist as it seemed in print. That being said it is an incredibly stupid divisive thing for a Democrat to say. I wish she would just go away. It will be interesting to see if it will cause her to lose any of her Black voter support in future senatorial races. However, the fact she has not apologized says a lot. Maybe this will be the thing that moves the super delegates to finish her off. Please. If there is any possible use for super delegates now is the time to act. Any African Americans reading who would care to comment on how racist or offensive they see the statement?
Interesting Question: If . . . I am not a racist . . but I USE Racism to gain what I want . .. or I use OTHER People's Racism . . . to gain what I want. . . .What am I? A Simple Opportunist? If you and the other guy come in for the interview He's minority and you not . . and you know the interviewer is a tinge racist If you continue to use comments like THEM and THEY and racially tinged commentary to sway him . . .. are you a Racist? or simply doing what it takes to get the job over the other guy? Rocket River
Sorry it was my mistake that the term was "fairy tale." That said as you note there were those in the Obama campaign that played it up to be racist statement when it was anything but the sort. "bull" indeed when apparently you are agreeing with the statement.
I hadn't heard the audio until now and I think its less of a racist, or racially tinged statement than I had thought before just reading it. Perhaps I'm subconsciously biased but I didn't hear any special emphasis on "White" it all sounded pretty monotone to me. If anything she sounded very tired and not really into the interview. As I said before I won't defend it accept to say that exit polling has shown that factually yes she does have more support among white working class voters than Obama has.
Good post and I thoroughly believe that Clinton will campaign hard in the general for Obama. And if somehow the converse happens I imagine Obama would campaign for Clinton. This is a tense primary fight but I predict most of this will be forgotten once the general starts.
I'm sick of Hillary and I'd like her to admit defeat, support Obama and just crawl into a cave for a while so I can forget how much I hate her right now. However, I'm not feeling outraged by this quote from her. It was graceless. But she's discussing demographic support that every damn pundit on the internet and TV has been discussing nonstop for weeks. It is well known that her team has been talking to superdelegates about this all through the Wright thing and ever since. Leading up to PA and after PA and leading up to NC and IN all that was being discussed was Obama's performance with working class whites on TV, blogs, newspapers, and here in D&D. I was a little shocked to hear her say it out loud in an interview, but it doesn't seem totally fair that everyone in the world except her is allowed to discuss the very relevant and important realities of voting demographics. It doesn't feel proper for her to mention race, but I think that's because of a forced political correctness on discourse. I read Major's explanations about the quote but I'm not getting it, and anybody feel free to try again, I'm open. Is she inferring something about whites or blacks that isn't already discussed openly? FWIW, Obama will not have a problem getting broad support in the general election.
Wrong. They didn't play it up to be racist at all and they certainly didn't tie it to MLK, bringing MLK into a thing based on the word "dream," a thing you imagined entirely. In fact, on the semi-controversial MLK statement that did come up it was Hillary who raised MLK where he hadn't been mentioned before -- to try to make the point that Obama was nothing but an inspirational speaker. This is instructive as you misremembered an entire incident in which it would have been totally credible to accuse Obama's team of making a racial issue where one didn't exist. In fact, that has never happened in this campaign (which is why I said "bull."). In this particular instance, Wilder wasn't suggesting anything about race and nobody even thought he was -- he was suggesting that Bill Clinton was calling his rise in politics, rather than his Iraq position, a fairy tale. It's kind of funny that you're trying to spin this entirely misremembered story to continue to make your point when it does the opposite and instead makes mine. I'll repeat that I have never actually bought into the thing about the Clintons injecting race into the campaign. I have rather thought that they made some awkward and unfortunate statements. The fact that you continue to follow the meme that it was actually Obama's people who made race an issue -- at any point in this campaign -- especially after the history lesson I provided in this thread, is really wild. And I think it pretty clearly demonstrates that you are indeed biased. I am too, but I don't have any problems backing up my bias for reasons why, in posts and threads I acknowledge are way overwritten and repetitive. Somehow though, the vast majority of my complaints about her campaign remain unanswered on this board. Now I know how Mango feels.
Here's an editorial from another radical Clinton hater, bnb. That Eugene Robinson has always been such a knee jerk dick. Plus he's black. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/desperate_clinton_is_danger_to.html May 09, 2008 Desperate Clinton is Danger to the Party By Eugene Robinson WASHINGTON -- From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short -- and that's why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines. If that sounds harsh, look at the argument she made Wednesday, in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press article "that found how Senator Obama's support ... among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." As a statement of fact, that's debatable at best. As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African-Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry. How silly of me. I thought the Democratic Party believed in a colorblind America. In private conversations last year, several of Clinton's high-profile African-American supporters made that same argument to me -- that America wasn't "ready" for a black president, that this simple fact doomed Obama to failure, that a Clinton Restoration was the best result that African-Americans could realistically hope for. Polls at the time showed Clinton leading Obama among black voters, a finding that reflected not only Clinton's greater name recognition but also considerable skepticism about a black candidate's ability to draw white support. Obama did prove he could win support from whites, of course, beginning in Iowa. He and Clinton effectively divided the party into demographic constituencies. Among the groups that have tended to vote for Clinton are white voters making less than $50,000 a year; among those who have turned out to vote for Obama are African-Americans, whose doubts about his prospects clearly have been allayed. Assuming that Obama is the eventual nominee, he will have some work to do in reuniting the party. But there's no reason to think he won't succeed -- unless Clinton drives a wedge between important elements of the party's historical coalition. Lower-income white Democrats may well defect to John McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee, Clinton is arguing, whereas African-Americans -- who have been choosing Obama by 9-1 -- are going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. Thus, she claims, she can better knit the party back together. Let's examine those premises. These are white Democrats we're talking about, voters who generally share the party's philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say, is that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist. The other notion -- that Clinton could position herself as some kind of Great White Hope and still expect African-American voters to give her their enthusiastic support in the fall -- is just nuts. Obama has already won more Democratic primary contests; within a couple of weeks, he almost certainly will have won more pledged convention delegates and more of the popular vote as well. Only in Camp Clinton does anyone believe that his supporters will be happy if party leaders tell him, in effect, "Nice job, kid, but we can't give you the nomination because, well, you're black. White people might not like that." Clinton's sin isn't racism, it's arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama's success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton's year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media's darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama. "It's still early," Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down. Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group
